[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by klinux

Talk about a cult of personality. And you wonder why people call certain Mac fan zealots.

Um, since Steve is CEO of the company, I think he'd know what Apple is up to better than anyone else. If Steve said this was true, I'd believe it. Are you saying you wouldn't?

[klinux]

Originally Posted by himself

I find this story extremely hard to believe...I can't imagine why it would happen.

Sounds like you are making an argumentom ad ignorantium? I will save you a search, an argument from ignorance is to say that if one cannot imagine it, then it must be impossible.

ASOT on Slashdot, among others, has already explained this numerous times - G5 is a brand, not the PowerPC chip. Apple studies have shown that the brand, the UI, etc are what Apple sells and users buy and like instead of the specific model # of the chip.

[Big Mac]

klinux is saying that we should believe C|Net and apparently now the WSJ instead of waiting for definitive confirmation from Steve. And klinux, yes, G5 is a brand, but it's not a very strong one. The renewed perception that Apple is again beleaguered, which would be apropos if this desperate transition is actually planned, is much more important to consumers than processor branding. (And for the record, Apple still promotes the G5 as the PowerPC G5.) Apple would be tossing out the window all of the positive feelings toward the company that have been engendered in the last few years. Again, anyone who believes this "hypothetical" transition as reported could possibly be in the least beneficial is seriously deluded. If Apple has abandoned PPC, then the end is most definitely nigh.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Um, since Steve is CEO of the company, I think he'd know what Apple is up to better than anyone else. If Steve said this was true, I'd believe it. Are you saying you wouldn't?

No, of couse I would believe it. But is he the only person who can confirm this? What if Andy Groves says it? How about Otellini? Or Pogue? My problem is the absolute worship of Jobs exhibited by some people there.

WSJ is a credible source. When people were all cheering Enron, it stubbornly investigated until it brought them down. Personally. I gave a lead to WSJ reporter once, and know some people there, and also know people who have been used as source (unrelated to Apple). I have high confidence in this story.

[klinux]

...

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by esXXI

By the wording it seems WSJ contacted someone who verified it.

(/Me returns to cradling doubt)

The WSJ probably just contacted someone who verified that C|Net did in fact write that article.

[Big Mac]

Hey, does anyone think it's at all possible that the rumors are off-base but not entirely wrong? Work with me here. . . What if, instead of an outlandish hardware transition for Apple, these reports signal the release of OS X Intel? That would be a brazen move, but at least it would not be suicidal.

[osxisfun]

shrug. maybe but leaving all that hardware money on the table would be the true suicide. software (OSX sales) would halve(?) the company + they would have had to be testing it for a long long time to get all the icky driveers and crap working on all the Fry-clone type machines.

My money is on apple hiring intel to fab new power PCs. intel getting a cross polination of good tech and in return intel making a kick ass portable chip based on centrino -dothan(?) type hardware...

slap on a layer of transitive emulation software for good measure too to deal with short term emulation...

[osxisfun]

and the above scenario also solves the biggest problem discussed so far. hardware sales between now and intel-time.

the above scenario means steve comes out and says:

Hey. we have a new partner. Intel is going to start making our powerpc chips starting next year. No biggie. Its going to be the same powerpc you know and love only better.

then he could go onto the next bullet point of his keynote

[Kerrigan]

I think I'm going to follow Zimphire's example and keep my mouth shut until monday. I want to make a bunch of predictions and give my opinion on the matter, but I will wait until monday.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

shrug. maybe but leaving all that hardware money on the table would be the true suicide. software (OSX sales) would halve(?) the company + they would have had to be testing it for a long long time to get all the icky driveers and crap working on all the Fry-clone type machines.

My money is on apple hiring intel to fab new power PCs. intel getting a cross polination of good tech and in return intel making a kick ass portable chip based on centrino -dothan(?) type hardware...

slap on a layer of transitive emulation software for good measure too to deal with short term emulation...

If they're building PPCs, why would the chips need Transitive?

[osxisfun]

Om Malik posted a pretty good blog entry:

http://gigaom.com/2005/06/04/steve-j...hes-mystifies/

Best Line:

First, this deal is going to be all about the laptops,


Bingo. Laptop sales are overtaking desktop sales. Laptop cpus are becoming more than enough for what most people do. Laptop can be hooked up to big LCDs.

IBM has no laptop chip.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Again, anyone who believes this "hypothetical" transition as reported could possibly be in the least beneficial is seriously deluded.

Well, there are a few ways it could be beneficial, such as if Apple somehow talked Intel into joining the PowerPC consortium. That would be beneficial, all right - actually, it would kick ass. But I have no idea how they would convince Intel that doing so would be worth their time.

Originally Posted by klinux

No, of couse I would believe it. But is he the only person who can confirm this? What if Andy Groves says it? How about Otellini? Or Pogue? My problem is the absolute worship of Jobs exhibited by some people there.

It's like this:

Apple almost always keeps their hardware plans secret until they're announced. When they're announced, typically it's Steve who does the announcement. Therefore, when Steve says it, that's usually the point at which something becomes news and no longer rumor. Saying "I'll believe it when Steve says it" is the same as saying "I'll believe it when it's up on Apple's web site."

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If they're building PPCs, why would the chips need Transitive?

I am thinking that the laptop chip would be a hybrid of mostly intel tech. they would use the transitive to make sure all our current software would run fine.

[Spliff]

F*ck! I just bought an iMac G5. And now Apple is going to instantly devalue it. I wonder if I can return it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliff

F*ck! I just bought an iMac G5. And now Apple is going to instantly devalue it. I wonder if I can return it.

It's not going to be devalued until 2006 at the earliest. I also just bought one today.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, there are a few ways it could be beneficial, such as if Apple somehow talked Intel into joining the PowerPC consortium. That would be beneficial, all right - actually, it would kick ass. But I have no idea how they would convince Intel that doing so would be worth their time.

Right, well I was talking about the rumor as reported (or as interpreted) - a transition to an Intel architecture. Intel building PPC chips is a very different matter. But either way, another questionable aspect of this story is why would Apple being running to Intel when its competitors (including IBM's Xbox coup and Cell in the PS3) seem to be flying much higher?

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Right, well I was talking about the rumor as reported (or as interpreted) - a transition to an Intel architecture. Intel building PPC chips is a very different matter. But either way, another questionable aspect of this story is why would Apple being running to Intel when its competitors (including IBM's Xbob coup and Cell in the PS3) seem to be flying much higher?

intel may have the fab lines free. If ibm is truly dorking apple over for their new sony / cell / m$ xbox lovers then this could have been the straw that broke the camel's back for apple. (the other straws being no 3 gig g5 and no laptop chip.) + there are only so many fab companies that one can go to. sort of like me switching mobile phoe carriers. (one day i'll find one with coverage that i love.)

[JoshuaZ]

I still can't believe this thread is happening. Pointless debate.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by klinux

WSJ is a credible source. When people were all cheering Enron, it stubbornly investigated until it brought them down. Personally. I gave a lead to WSJ reporter once, and know some people there, and also know people who have been used as source (unrelated to Apple). I have high confidence in this story.

NewsWeek is (was) also a credible source... and we all know how that one turned out.

Just sayin'...

[osxisfun]

Man, CNET offices are certainly going to be buzzing monday that's for sure.

Intel, Apple coupling could woo Hollywood

http://news.com.com/Intel%2C+Apple+c...2238&subj=news

[Zimphire]

Interesting take on it all.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...ml?partner=rss

[osxisfun]

Out of the woodwork:

Apple will switch to X86 processors

Talking to AMD too

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714


35 hrs!

[vinster]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Interesting take on it all.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...ml?partner=rss

Finally a sensible analysis.

[segaslave]

ok i really dont know whats going to happen with apple/intel. but Really why would apple just abandon ibm and the PPC. apple is having a great run right now we all know the g5 is killer even MS stole it for the xbox. how could apple just decide to up and leave that over night. i think the rumor is way off sight. we could see tiger for x86, or even imagine something Totally new from intel to run tiger. intel knows they are falling behind the others and needs something to pull them up again.

however if it is a case of switching over the x86 im buying a brand new g5 monday so ill least have a fast g5 and likely the last to ever come along. so i dont have to make the move to x86 for a few years at least.

[Kerrigan]

Who are all of these independent sources that C|Net, WSJ, and The Inquirer are mentioning? If it is so easy for them to confirm this, shouldn't we have known about this ages ago?

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Who are all of these independent sources that C|Net, WSJ, and The Inquirer are mentioning? If it is so easy for them to confirm this, shouldn't we have known about this ages ago?

You would have to ask them, but i doubt they will give up their sources.

We will know monday if their sources are full of beans or not.

If people abided by their NDA then we prob would not have heard about it till now (close to release)

[segaslave]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

You would have to ask them, but i doubt they will give up their sources.
We will know monday if their sources are full of beans or not.
If people abided by their NDA then we prob would not have heard about it till now (close to release)

i want to see the face on jobs when he makes this announcement(if its all true). knowing over the years hes always put the x86 chips down claiming how great the ppc really is/was. to see his face as he takes all that back and goes with the other guys, then on top of that knowing it got leaked out before his big speech will make it priceless.

[sideus]

This is going to be funny come Monday and Steve says nothing at all about all this.

[segaslave]

Originally Posted by sideus

This is going to be funny come Monday and Steve says nothing at all about all this.

or its something really stupid(in comparison) like the ipod using some intel based chip or something that has no real effect on anything.

[Kerrigan]

You know he is so pissed right now.

[Hash]

Look, here we have a situation when Apple has a best OS but no corresponding hardware (in terms of quality and speed). Moreover, its laptop business is screwed by the supplier of chips with no definite roadmap, who has also screwed their desktop business by false promises and has not delivered at all and, moreover, has no clear intentions to deliver or a some kind of realistic and believable timeframe for delivery of chips. No serious company can live with it.

Hence, Apple wants better chips for its laptops and faster chips for its desktops. We can't blame Apple for that. Of course, change of architechture means software changes. But if Apple does not make that change, it will die slow death because of IBM; if it makes that move, painful now, but delivering steady progress in future and therefore, gaining in total, then it has to do it. Software changes are hard to implement, but do not forget that we are not going to see entire Apple hardware line moving to Intel overnight.

Instead, step by step, first maybe on mini and mobiles, then desktops and so on. This means that even with Intel chips in some computers, we still gonna have G4 and G5 in other lines for 2005, 2006 and maybe 2007. It is very normal and very healthy situation. Should one of suppliers fault, the others can pick up the slack, maybe we will see some Cell-based computers, or ARM based PDA, or Pentium M-based ibooks (but it will not be called Pentium M - maybe P6 or P V (instead of P IV)? And it is good for Intel to have a partner in OS other than MS. And good for Apple as well.

Transitive layers will ensure that Mac OS X and its apps run with acceptable speed on all kinds of Apple hardware, powered by Intel, IBM, Cells and who knows, maybe AMD. And with rounds of optimizations it maybe very fast on those modern chips.

Think of iTunes as a best example. We have iTunes for Windows and it runs on all kinds of PCs with all kinds of processors. But the main hardware (iPod) is Apple-made. Now, think of OS X. It may run on different processors, from G3 to G5 and now Intel, AMD and so on. But the heart of hardware - some kind of mainboard or chipset, I do not know, still will be made by Apple. And it may be leased to Sony, HP and IBM. Apple may completely withdrew themselves from desktops and mobiles if they want and let those companies produce Mac-compatibles, all running OS X and it will have much larger share of market and earn more on licenses and royalties then it did on hardware.

Yes, return of the clones. But then MS Windows and Longhorn will be definitely screwed and losing market share rapidly. Consumers will have cheap and quality hardware from Apple, Sony, HP, IBM running OS X. I think its a plausible scenario.

On the other side, existing x86 cannot run OS X of course, but I were Apple, maybe I would give the OS X for PCs for cheap or free as (iTunes and QuickTime) to obtain larger share of the market initially. Suppose consumer can use OS X on existing PCs but have to swap mainboards (buy Apple-made mainboards) and use existing processors, hard drives and other parts - thats same strategy as Mac mini, utilize your PC parts- and you have suddenly new business, selling millions of mainboards to PC enthusiasts all over the world. I am sure that OS X will run fast, quite fast on P IV 3 Ghz with 128 mb videocards. And if you want better expericence, you may buy Apple-certified Intel CPU, say 3.8Ghz or prefer G5 combo.

[DeathMan]

blah blah blah blah. is it monday yet?

[segaslave]

Originally Posted by Hash

On the other side, existing x86 cannot run OS X of course, but I were Apple, maybe I would give the OS X for PCs for cheap or free as (iTunes and QuickTime) to obtain larger share of the market initially. Suppose consumer can use OS X on existing PCs but have to swap mainboards (buy Apple-made mainboards) and use existing processors, hard drives and other parts - thats same strategy as Mac mini, utilize your PC parts- and you have suddenly new business, selling millions of mainboards to PC enthusiasts all over the world. I am sure that OS X will run fast, quite fast on P IV 3 Ghz with 128 mb videocards. And if you want better expericence, you may buy Apple-certified Intel CPU, say 3.8Ghz or prefer G5 combo.

ok i think this makes no sense, apple has always been about ease of use. suddenly your going to ask the consumer to break open their computer and put a new mother board in? sure alot of people can, but most dont know how or want to know how. let alone the costs of paying someone else to do it. imagine a company with 100 computers that is thinking of switching to osx and having to swap MBs on all of those machines, it wont happen. gates would have a field day with that idea also.

i dont see them being able to maintain two versions of the Os for very long, they would have to give up ppc pretty quick and keep their focus.

i can see them going with laptops first because of all the peripherals dont apply to laptops as much. you dont need to worry about making ever pci card in the world work suddenly. thats the great thing about apples hardware its so closed you dont need it to work with everything like x86. thats why i dont see it working out in the long run.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Saying "I'll believe it when Steve says it" is the same as saying "I'll believe it when it's up on Apple's web site."

It could mean that. In fact, if a sensible person said it that is what I would have assumed. However, there are idiots here that do literally mean that even if Otellini shows an invoice of Apple's order, the idiots will still say that I won't believe it until Steve says so.

For example, here is one:

Originally Posted by vinster

http://www.forbes.com/technology/20...tml?partner=rss

Finally a sensible analysis.

What makes this a sensible analysis? Why is an article two week old article more convincing than an up-to-date report with schedule, confirmation of meeting etc?

[Big Mac]

Think Secret has never updated its statement that says none of its sources have heard anything about an Intel switch. Are we to believe Think Secret has finally been disabled as a result of Apple's legal assault?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by klinux

It could mean that. In fact, if a sensible person said it that is what I would have assumed. However, there are idiots here that do literally mean that even if Otellini shows an invoice of Apple's order, the idiots will still say that I won't believe it until Steve says so.

This is nothing but hyperbole. You know damn well what he meant. If you don't, then you are in no position to be calling people idiots.

What makes this a sensible analysis? Why is an article two week old article more convincing than an up-to-date report with schedule, confirmation of meeting etc?

Because it makes valid points. There are huge technical hurdles in doing something like this.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Think Secret has never updated its statement that says none of its sources have heard anything about an Intel switch. Are we to believe Think Secret has finally been disabled as a result of Apple's legal assault?

In fact, they have a story on new technology from IBM. God, I hope they are right.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by Spliff

F*ck! I just bought an iMac G5. And now Apple is going to instantly devalue it. I wonder if I can return it.

And this, ladies and gents, is the reason Apple had better do something about this rumour very, very quickly. Most ordinary lay people do not think about or even want to think about, the details of their computer. To them it's a PC or it's a Mac. Rumours of Apple switching to Intel will simply make most normal people think that Apple is going to switch to x86 and that buying any Apple hardware between now and then is a waste of money.

For Apple's own sake, they better stop this rumour by tomrrow or else they are going to lose one hell of a lot of customers.

As for me, if Apple actually does do another architecture/platform switch, like they've done twice now, I will finally drop Apple for good. There is no way that I'm going to reinvest new software for a new platform. If I have to do that I'll switch back to Windows.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This rumor circulates every year or so. Apple has used better chips than the Intels of their day at every point in their history. IBM chose x86 for its PC line because it sucked.

IBM chose Intel's 8088 because it sucked. There was nothing wrong with the 8086. Or 80286 or 80386 or 80486 or Pentium, or Pentium II or...

And despite x86 being at its end, Intel and AMD continue to invest necessary resources to upgrade it. For the past decade. Same can't be said for IBM and Freescale.

Which isn't to say I believe Apple is about to switch to Intel processors, let alone x86

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by theolein

As for me, if Apple actually does do another architecture/platform switch, like they've done twice now, I will finally drop Apple for good. There is no way that I'm going to reinvest new software for a new platform. If I have to do that I'll switch back to Windows.

Both the switch from 68k to PPC and from classic Mac OS to OS X allowed you to continue to use your existing software. You can still run 68k software on Mac OS X now. Windows also had its platform switch from Win95 to NT.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Both the switch from 68k to PPC and from classic Mac OS to OS X allowed you to continue to use your existing software. You can still run 68k software on Mac OS X now. Windows also had its platform switch from Win95 to NT.

That's not the point, Tetenal. Even with backward compatibility, a switch from PPC to an Intel architecture would be disastrous for Apple's reputation. If Apple intends to switch to an Intel architecture, the company may as well become iPod Corp. Plain and simple.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's not the point, Tetenal. Even with backward compatibility, a switch from PPC to an Intel architecture would be disastrous for Apple's reputation.

Maybe, but theolein was talking abou the user's perspective and from that perspective the transitions Apple had made were pretty seamless (and beneficial). I don't understand the complaining here especially when you consider that Windows had its OS switch too and will have to make a processor switch as well.

One switch of that kind every ten years isn't so bad.

[fhoubi]

From IBM's point of view:

They are making all cpu's for all next game consoles, and console specs/speeds do not change during its lifetime. Maybe 50 million cpu's in the next 5 years? Compare this to Apple cpu numbers?

#1 No need to sell/deliver faster cpu's every 9 months.
#2 More than enough sales. I guess they are more than happy.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Maybe, but theolein was talking abou the user's perspective and from that perspective the transitions Apple had made were pretty seamless (and beneficial). I don't understand the complaining here especially when you consider that Windows had its OS switch too and will have to make a processor switch as well.

One switch of that kind every ten years isn't so bad.

I understand what you're saying, but how can you possibly compare the switch from Windows 95 to XP at all similar? First of all, there was no processor architecture change involved in that transition. Secondly, Microsoft has a captive audience that will follow its dictates - namely, 95% of the market. And thirdly, Windows users had terrifically strong incentive to upgrade their systems - Windows 3 was an abomination.

Apple doesn't have that clout. Apple users have little incentive to embark on another costly, risky transition. Apple was able to pull of the 68k->PPC transition rather smoothly, but it was in a different position then in those pre-Windows 95 days. Apple has already expended its resources on the OS X transition. And suddenly, without warning or long term preparation, they're going to pull of a fractured, desperate transition to an Intel ISA?

[ender2002]

Originally Posted by theolein

For Apple's own sake, they better stop this rumour by tomrrow or else they are going to lose one hell of a lot of customers.

... wrong. you really think joe schmoe and his lady who buy apple products are even aware of this rumor. you think even if apple changes its processors that it will have an effect on their future decisions? 90% of the people who buy computers today barely know the difference between RAM and a hard drive, let alone care about what chip manufacturer provides the processor in whatever computer.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

You know he is so pissed right now.

Not likely, if the story's true. You can't keep a lid on something this big.

If the story's false, then yeah, I'd be pissed.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by Hash

Transitive layers will ensure that Mac OS X and its apps run with acceptable speed on all kinds of Apple hardware, powered by Intel, IBM, Cells and who knows, maybe AMD. And with rounds of optimizations it maybe very fast on those modern chips.

What are these transitive layers you speak of? Hardware or software?

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by ender2002

... wrong. you really think joe schmoe and his lady who buy apple products are even aware of this rumor. you think even if apple changes its processors that it will have an effect on their future decisions? 90% of the people who buy computers today barely know the difference between RAM and a hard drive, let alone care about what chip manufacturer provides the processor in whatever computer.

Most people talk about memory saying they have 200 GB memory: that's quite a lot of RAM indeed

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

What are these transitive layers you speak of? Hardware or software?

Transitive.com

[d0ubled0wn]

If a switch to x86 is in the offing, one incredible positive from my perspective is that Joe Shmoe can go buy a x86 Mac because he loves gaming but wants the security of an OS X system. Possibly Joe Schmoe has already been burned by spyware/virii. Joe didn't want a Mac before because there isn't enough games. An x86 Mac with the ability to run Windows at native speeds brings all those games to the Mac table.

The flip side is, will it kill porting games to OS X? Possibly, but we all know that many games underperform on OS X *ahem* Doom 3 *cough*. In Apple's perspective, who cares? Buy an x86 Mac to run Windows games, and also have your iLife to boot and leave the spyware to the crazies.

Dare I say, Apple then pulls the plug on Windows iTunes? At least future development. Sure a lot of people might be PO'd, that's why I think Apple would do it.